33D CONG....2D SESS.

Then, here is the proposition made on the 18th April, 1800, by the American Ministers, for the formation of a new treaty to recognize and settle these claims. The second article recites the fact that captures and seizures had been made of American vessels by French citizens, and closes with these words:

"It is agreed that in all such cases full and complete compensation shall be made by the French Government."

Here, also, is the testimony of the great Napoleon himself, while at St. Helena. Speaking of the Convention of 1800, which settled these matters, and of the suppression of the second article, he says:

"The suppression of this article at once put an end to the privileges which France had possessed by the treaty of 1778, and annulled the just claims which America might have made for injuries done in time of peace."-Gourgaud's Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 129,

He adds, in continuation:

"This was exactly what the First Consul had proposed to himself, in fixing these two points as equiponderating each other, Without this, it would have been impossible to satisfy the merchants of the United States, and to banish from their memory the losses they had suffered. The First Consul's ratification of this treaty was dated July 31, 1801, and declared that it was to be clearly understood that the suppression of article two annulled all claims for indemnity," &c.

The letter of W. C. Preston to Mr. Causten shows us the opinion which Chief Justice Marshall entertained of the rights of these parties as against our Government. He said:

"That, having been connected with the events of that period, and conversant with the circumstances under which he claims arose, he was, from his own knowledge, satisfied that there was the strongest obligation on the Government to compensate the sufferers by the French spoliations. He gave a sucsinct statement of the leading facts, and the principles of law applicable to them, in so precise and lucid a way, that it seemed to me a termination of the argument by a judicial decision."

Bad feeling had existed on both sides; and after the depredations on our commerce had been carried to an enormous extent, and our country had prepared for war, the door was opened, plenipotentiaries were sent to France, and negotiations were commenced.

Propositions were made on all sides. The American Ministers began by saying: You must pay us indemnity for these spoliations. The French Ministers replied: We are willing to pay it; it is right enough; but while we acknowledge our liability for the indemnity, you will perceive that that liability grows out of the existing treaties of amity and alliance, and our liability to pay the indemnity for spoliations involves an acknowledgment upon your part that those treaties still exist. The Americans replied that those treaties had been annulled by act of Congress, and that, therefore, they could not recognize their existence.

The negotiations went on, and arguments were resorted to, sufficiently ingenious and able on both sides. Finally, the American Ministers offered to which the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] buy off our liability, under this very guarantee has told us to-day was valueless. The American ministers proposed, in direct terms-the evidence is before me to buy off the claim of France in regard to that guarantee, and also the privilege secured to the French of using American portsprovisions of the very treaties which Congress had declared to be annulled. They proposed to give a specified and definite sum of money to be released from each of those privileges. Now, sir, with that fact before us, what becomes of the statement of the gentleman that the guarantee was valueless? If it was valueless, why did our Ministers offer to give a certain sum of money to be released from it? This they did do. The testimony is here in our own diplomatic correspondence. At page 625, you will find the offer of the American commissioners to give eight millions of francs to be released from those treaty stipulations. France offered to take the eight millions of francs to release us from that guarantee, and to offset our claim for indemnity by relinquishing her right of using American ports. She said: we will take the eight millions of francs, and release you from the guarantee; but then we shall claim that our right to the use of your ports is equal in value to your claims for indemnity; that is to say, we will release you from all the obligations of the respective treaties of amity and alliance, provided you give us eight millions of francs, and pay your

French Spoliations-Mr. Disney.

own citizens indemnity for spoliations committed by us. Can the gentleman from Missouri, and those who side with him, deny this in the teeth and eyes of this record? Can that be said to be valueless which you authorized your own Ministers to offer such a sum for, and which the French appreciated, as is illustrated by their counter proposition?

Ho. OF REPS.

convention as fully ratified," and it was so proclaimed officially by the President of the United States.

Now, sir, is it possible for a thing to be more expressive than the language contained in this article? It is a specific renunciation on the part of each of the parties of their respective pretensions; and these pretensions are described in the rejected second article-that is to say, the pretensions on the part of France that we were still liable for our treaty obligations, and the pretensions of the United States that the Government of France should indemnify them for its spoliations on American citizens. Were they valueless on either side?

I now come back to my original statement of the case. The United States did undertake to, and did renounce, on the part of the American claimants, an admitted right of remedy as against the Government of France, and renounced it for a consideration; for, as I have shown, the Government of the United States actually offered money, to a specified amount, in order to be released from the obligations which it was under to France, and from which it did get relieved by the cession of the rights of the claimants provided for in this bill. Now, sir, is there a lawyer in this House who will not say, that, in an action under such facts against a private individual, before any judicial tribunal in the country, the court would not decree against the agent, who, having undertaken a settlement of the accounts of these claimants, had executed a receipt in full acquittance and discharge, and had received a valuable consideration for it— is there a lawyer who would say that such an

Another offer of the Americans, at a subsequent stage of the negotiation, was, that France should have her treaty rights, and acknowledge the liability for indemnity, but suspend the payment until France could be restored to the use of our ports. Finally, the French offered to go into a new treaty, and say nothing about the indemnity for these spoliations. Our Ministers were embarrassed by the act of Congress declaring the treaties null and void, and by being directed to press for indemnification for these spoliations. The French admitted the liability, but insisted that the treaties existed. The two parties began to be sensible that they could never come to an agreement on those terms, and that some middle course must be adopted. The French, then, said: "We can readily understand how your country, sparsely populated as it is, situated at an immense distance from France, and exposed to the naval power of England, we can understand how careful you must be not to provoke that Government into hostilities against you, and we have no disposition to put you into such a dangerous position. It is more important for France, said they, that the United States should preserve their independence, than the exact execution of a legal obligation to us, when, by insisting, we might subject you again to the English yoke, (joug.)" The French commission-agent would not be liable, or is there a judicial ers talked liberally and comprehensively. They said: though these considerations may induce us to forbear insisting on the specific execution of your treaty obligations, yet we must, at least, ask you to put us on the same footing as England; we will release you from the obligations of the existing treaties, but we ask you to release us, also, from the claims for spoliations, because we give up infinitely more than we ask of you in return. The negotiators finally came to terms.

The second article of this new treaty was a stipulation that the two high contracting parties, not being able to agree at present upon certain claims arising out of the treaty of amity and commerce, and for certain spoliations, would negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient time. That treaty came here and was submitted to the Senate for its ratification; but the Senate struck out that article, adding in lieu of it these words:

"It is agreed that the within convention shall be in force for the term of eight years from the time of the exchange of this treaty."

It will be perceived that the second article provided for future negotiation on these vexed suband the claims of France on the United States, for jects-the claims of American citizens on France indemnity for the guarantee of its West India Islands, and for the use of the American ports.

But the new treaty made other stipulations, which were supposed to be of great importance to both countries. The treaty came here, and, as I have said, the Senate refused to ratify that second article, but struck it out entirely. It was sent back to France, with this modification, for ratification. France objected, and asked why the modification was made. It may be, said they, that in striking out that article you intended hold us liable for these indemnities; but at the same time you are disavowing your liability under the treaty stipulation of 1778. Explanations took place between the parties, and arguments were made, until finally the French Government ratified it, with the further modification, as it now stands,

in these words:

"The Government of the United States having added in its ratification that the convention should be in force for eight years, and, having omitted the second article, the Government of the French Republic consents to accept, ratify, and confirm the above convention, with the additional article importing that the convention shall be in force for the space of eight years, and with the retrenchment of the second article: Provided, That by this retrenchment, the two States renonuce the respective pretensions which are the object of the said article."

Which, being returned to the United States, the Senate declared that "they considered the said

court who would not enter a decree against the agent, at least to the extent of the consideration which he had received? Is there a doubt of the law in such a case? All the positions of the able gentlemen who have opposed this bill have only succeeded in mystifying the case; they have not staggered the arguments by which the principle of the bill is supported.

The question has been presented, whether, under the facts, the Government of the United States should pay the full amount claimed by these parties. It has not been argued here to-day that there was not a just claim against the Government of France, nor has it been attempted to be proven that our Government did not receive a valuable consideration from France for releasing her from these claims, nor that the Government of the United States did not thereby incur liability to the parties, but the opposition is made on the ground of the amount of these claims. It is argued that it may be that the amount of these claims is infinitely larger than that which the bill provides for, and that the provision for a part involves the recognition of our liability for the whole.

Mr. ORR, (interrupting.) I denied the liability of the Government to pay these claims, and stated so in my remarks.

Mr. DISNEY. Then I did not hear the gen

tleman's remarks. I have stated that it is contended by some that if this bill were passed, the Government would be liable to be called upon to pay further claims. But there are others who, while they acknowledge the liability of the Government for the settlement of these claims, yet deny that that liability extended beyond the consideration which the Government had received for their settlement, and who felt willing to give over to the claimants the full amount of the received consideration. This bill is framed with reference to this latter consideration. It does not provide that the claimants will be entitled to the full amount of their claim, but it recognizes the principle that they are entitled to recover the full amount of the consideration which the Government of the United States received from the Government of France. That is the principle upon which it stands: and that principle excludes all further claims, because this bill is a decision by Congress of the extent to which the United States are liable. It excludes the right of claimants to claim anything beyond the consideration received by the United States in the settlement of these claims.

I said, when I got up, that I intended to be limited in the extent of my remarks. I have a mass of materials before me which would occupy my time and the attention of the House for hours; but I

33D CONG....2d Sess.

see how impossible it would be for me to attempt going into it. I shall therefore content myself with this plain exposition to the House. The case stands precisely upon the single point that there was an admitted liability on the part of the Government of France for the spoliations committed on our citizens; which liability our Government released for a valuable consideration. And the bill proposes to pay over to the parties whose property was taken the amount of the consideration which the United States received for their settlement.

One other matter before I take my seat. It has been objected that the Government went to all the lengths which it was bound to go to for the collection of these claims; and it is denied that the Government can be bound for their payment, because it did not go to war to enforce them. Now I admit that the Government is not bound, in protection of its citizens, to go to war, because the rights of these citizens may be invaded, or because justice may have been refused or denied them by a foreign Government. The parties interested in these claims set up no such pretension; they do not claim that the Government ought to have gone to war to recover them. They make no claim of the kind, but they do claim that the Government, having acted as their agent to collect the money due them, did collect it to a certain amount, and is, therefore, under obligations to honestly account for it. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. ORR] says that he denies any obligation on the part of the Government to pay these claims. But can there be any reason for refusing to pay an obligation of this kind? Can it be denied in law? If it should be proven that a party acting as agent for the gentleman from South Carolina had absolutely recovered a debt due him, the amount of which could be shown, I think that the gentleman would hold him to an account, at least, to the extent of the claim that he had recovered. so this case stands, and it is all there is of it.

And

NOTES.-The following extracts illustrate the opinions of the two Governments, in relation to the value of the Treaties of 1778, and the liability of France to indemnify for her spoliations:

"At an interview, to-day, with the French Ministers, the following proposition was delivered to them in writing:

"Indemnities to be ascertained and secured in the manner proposed in our project of a treaty, but not to be paid until the United States shall have offered to France an article stipulating free admission in the ports of each, for the privateers and prizes of the other, and the exclusion of those of their enemies; nor, unless the article be offered within seven years, such article to have the same effect, in point of priority, as a similar provision had in the treaty of 1778." Journal of American Ministers, July 15, 1800.

"To suspend the payment of compensation, (for the spoliations,) a consideration of much weight in the estimation of the United States, until France would be put into complete possession of the privileges (the use of the American ports) she contended for, and, at the same time, to give that security which a great pecuniary pledge would amount to, for her having that privilege."-Proposition of the American Ministers July 23, 1800.

"The first proposition of the Ministers of France is to stipulate a full and entire recognition of the treaties, and the reciprocal engagement of compensation for damages resulting on both sides for their infraction, &c., &c. Either the ancient treaties, with the privileges resulting from priority, and the stipulation of reciprocal indemnities, or a new treaty assuring equality without indemnity."-Proposition of French Ministers, August 11, 1800.

"1. Let it be declared that the former treaties are renewed and confirmed, and shall have the same effect as if no misunderstanding between the two Powers had intervened, except so far as they are derogated from by the present treaty.

2. It shall be optional with either party to pay to the other, within seven years, three millions of francs in money or securities which may be issued for indemnities, and thereby reduce the rights of the other as to privateers and prizes, to those of the most favored nation, &c.

3. The mutual guarantee in the treaty of alliance shall be so specified and limited that its future obligation shall be, on the part of France, when the United States shall be attacked, to furnish and deliver, at her own ports, military stores to the amount of one million of francs, and on the part of the United States, when the French possessions in America, in any future war, shall be attacked, to furnish and deliver, at their own ports, a like amount in provisions. It shall, moreover, be optional for either party to exonerate itself wholly of its obligations by paying to the other, within seven years, a gross sum of five million of francs in money, or such securities as may be issued for indemnities.

5. There shall be a reciprocal stipulation for indemnities, and these indemnities shall be limited to the claims of individuals," &c.-Proposition of American Ministers, August 20, 1800.

"The note, however, of the American Ministers proposes an essential modification of the seventeenth article.

&c.

"2. Commissioners shall be appointed to liquidate the respective losses.

4. If, during the term of seven years, the proposal to establish the seventeenth and twenty-second articles be not made and accepted without reserve, the award for indemnities determined by the commissioners shall not be allowed.

"5. The guarantee stipulated by the treaty of alliance shall be converted into a grant of succor for two millions. But this grant shall not be redeemable unless by a capital of ten millions."-Proposition of French Ministers, August 25, 1800.

[NOTE. The fourth article as above is a proposition to affect indemnities against the use of the American ports, and the fifth article is to release the guarantee for ten millions of francs.]

"It is agreed that the United States shall pay to the French Republic, within seven years, &c., eight millions of francs in money, or such securities as have been or may be issued to citizens of the United States for indemnities under the said treaty, together with interest, &c. And that as a consideration of such engagement the United States shall forever be exonerated of the obligation on their part to furnish succor, or aid under the mutual guarantee of the eleventh article of the treaty of alliance of the 6th of February, 1778, and the rights of the French Republic, under the seventeenth and twenty-second articles of the treaty of amity and commerce of the same date, shall be forever limited to such as the most favored nation shall in these respects enjoy. To such a stipulation in connection, &c., the American envoys would agree."-Proposition of American Ministers, August 29, 1800.

"We shall have a right to take our prizes into the ports of America. A commission shall regulate the indemnities which either of the two nations may owe to the citizens of the other. The indemnities which shall be due by France to the citizens of the United States shall be paid for by the United States; and in return for which France yields the exclusive privilege resulting from the seventeenth and twenty-second articles of the treaty of commerce, and from the rights of guaranteeing the eleventh article of the treaty of alliance."-Proposition of French Ministers, September 4, 1800.

"I wish I had been authorized to subscribe to a joint

abandonment of treaties and indemnities. As claims, they will always be set off against each other by them, and I consider the cessation of their claims to treaties as valu

able."-Letter of Commissioner Murray to Secretary of

State, Paris, July 1, 1801.

"The suppression of this article (the second article of the Convention of 1800) releasing the Americans from all pretensions on our part relative to ancient treaties, and our silence respecting the same article, leaving us exposed to the whole weight of the eventual demand of this Government relative to indemnities, it has become necessary that a form be introduced into the act of ratification in order to express the sense in which the Government of the Republic understood and accepted the abolition of the suppressed article."-Letter of Talleyrand to Pechon, August 4, 1801. "I own I have always considered this article and the guarantee of our independence as more important to us than the guarantee of the Islands was to France, and the sacrifices we have made of our immense claims to get rid of it as a dead loss."-Mr. Livingston to the Secretary of State, Paris, January 13, 1802.

"It will, sir, be well recollected by the distinguished characters who had the management of the negotiation, that the payment for illegal captures, with damages and indemnities, was demanded on one side, and the renewal of the treaty of 1778 on the other, that they were considered as of equivalent value, and that they only formed the subject of the second article," &c.-Letter of Mr. Livingston to French Minister, April 17, 1802.

"The claims, again, from which France was released were admitted by France, and the release was for a valuable consideration on a correspondent release of the United States from certain claims on them."-Mr. Madison to American Minister to Spain, February 6, 1804.

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS.

SPEECH OF HON. P. PHILLIPS, OF ALABAMA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

January 25, 1855.

established, and our independence made secure. Here, sir, we find this national Hall decorated with the portraits of the two great men of that eventful and trying period. On your right and on your left are Washington and Lafayette. They who now stand face to face, then stood side by side and shoulder to shoulder. Together, as the representatives of their Governments, they encountered the dangers and perils of the conflict. Who does not remember the desperate condition of the American Army, the despondency of our officers, the cruel privations and sufferings of our men, at that period of the war, when the news arrived that the States had entered into a treaty of alliance with France, by which that Government stipulated "to maintain effectually the liberty, sovereignty, and independence of the United States, as well in matters of Government as of commerce,' ‚”(treaty of alliance, February 6, 1778.) Sir, this intelligence brought joy and healing on its wings; it stimulated the bold, it confirmed the wavering, it lifted up and strengthened the down cast. I will not say that the independence of the States would not have been finally achieved by their own rapidly increasing population and resources, but this I do say, that without the aid of France, at that time, the result of our revolutionary war would have been more than problematical.

But it is important to be considered that, while the treaty guaranteed the sovereignty and independence of the States, and the possessions which they might acquire by conquest or treaty stipulations, they, on their part, guaranteed to France the then possessions of the Crown of France in America, as well as those it might acquire by the future amity and commerce, of 6th February, 1778, and treaty of peace. By the subsequent treaty of the convention of November 14, 1788, it was agreed that the French should enter American ports with their prizes-while nations at war with France were excluded from the like privilege. Privateers under commission hostile to France were denied the right to fit out their vessels or carry on barter there, and to the French consuls full power and jurisdiction were given over all French vessels in civil disputes arising thereon, with a complete inspection over said vessels and their crews. Such, in brief, were the mutual stipulations entered into between the two Governments.

I shall not, Mr. Chairman, go into the question faith. I shall not inquire whether the aid promised whether these stipulations were fulfilled in good was given. I pass by the obvious fact that notwithstanding the eighth article of the treaty of alliance, that neither of the parties "should conclude either truce or peace" without "the formal consent of the other first obtained," that in 1782-3 the States did conclude a peace with Great Britain without the knowledge or consent of their ally.

These are matters which involve the honor of our country, and the consideration of them is not called for by the demands of the subject now before us. Let it suffice to say that France was loud in her complaints for alleged violations of treaty compacts; and that, on the breaking out of the war in 1793, with Great Britain, she commenced a system of aggravated plunder and confiscation of our commerce; and this was carried to such extent that the estimate of the number of vessels seized prior to 1800 has gone as high as two thousand. This statement, though brief, is sufficiently full to show the origin of the claims or pretensions on

Mr. PHILLIPS said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The subject under consideration has been illustrated by the most eminent statesmen of our country. I do not promise that I shall be able to add to the discussion heretofore had, one new fact or argument. My attempt will be, to array the facts in the simplest form, and to argue as concisely as possible, the legal and logical deductions from them. In doing this, should I

the discussion with the indisputable and undisputed fact of American losses, to a large amount, occasioned by seizures and embargoes, under authority of the French Government.

The gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. ORR,] who has just taken his seat, while admitting that our commerce was harassed, and our citizens despoiled, denies that this afforded any claim for reparation on the French Government, because, as he asserts, these wrongs were inflicted during a period of war between France and the United

33D CONG....2D SESS.

States. To support this proposition the gentleman has read the act of 1798, and other acts of Congress. But is it not a surprise to hear it announced that these acts were equivalent to a declaration of war between these two countries? Under the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare war. It is Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, and President; the whole legislative power of the Government. I call for the declaration of war made against France. Who made it? Where is it? When did the war begin? When did it end? If ended, where is the treaty of peace? Is the fact of war one so doubtful, secret, or mysterious, that we are challenged to debate the question of its existence? The statutes which the gentleman has read, show partial hostility between the two Governments, but no war or general hostility, and the gentleman has fallen into the error of not recognizing the broad line of demarcation, which, on well established principles of international law lies between them. Without intending the slightest disrespect to my friend from South Carolina, I cannot feel it to be necessary to press this distinction further.

Having shown that the claims of our citizens did not grow out of the aggressions of war, let us inquire what view our Government has taken of them, whether they have ignored their existence, or admitted their validity? Notwithstanding the denial of the gentleman, I think I shall be able to show that our Government has uniformly recognised the losses thus inflicted on our citizens, and considered them entitled to redress.

The gentleman from South Carolina has introduced the act of Congress of 1798, which, in terms, abrogates the treaties with France. At any rate, it will be admitted that the treaties were binding until the passage of the act. Prior to that time, it follows, the treaties were operative, and as a large portion of these claims are for seizures made before the date of that act they would be excluded from the objections urged by the gentleman. But let us return to the question of recognition by our Government. The preamble of that act recites as a ground of the abrogation that:

"Under the authority of the French Government there is yet pursued against the United States a system of predatory violence, infracting the said treaties, and hostile to the rights of a free and independent nation."

Here is a solemn acknowledgment of the wrong committed by the French Government upon our citizens, wrongs of so grievous a nature as to justify the extremest action of a retaliatory character. But this recognition does not stop here. The Government, admitting the obligation of protection due to its citizens, sent two commissions to France, one in 1797, composed of Messrs. Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry; and the other in 1799, consisting of Ellsworth, Davie, and Murray. These commissions were to arrange, and, if possible, to adjust all the difficulties pending between the two countries, included in which were the claims of our citizens for what are now known as "French spoliations."

The instructions to our Ministers in 1797 were as follows:

"Although the reparation for losses sustained by the citizens of the United States, in consequence of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations, or forcible seizure, or detentions, is of very high importance, and is to be pressed with the greatest earnestness; yet it is not to be insisted on as an indispensable condition of the proposed treaty. You are not, however, to renounce these claims of our citizens, nor to stipulate that they be assumed by the United States as a loan to the French Government."-Doc. 102, p. 455.

In 1799, the instructions were somewhat varied: "At the opening of the negotiation you will inform the French Ministers that the United States expect from France, as an indispensable condition of the treaty, a stipulation to make the citizens of the United States full compensation for all losses and damages which they shall have sustained by reason of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels, and other property, under color of authority or commissions from the French Republic or its agents."— Doc. 102, p. 562.

Now, with these specific directions, if a treaty had been made, which wholly omitted any provision for indemnity, it would have been such a violation of duty on the part of the commissioners as to have occasioned the greatest surprise. The labor of the commission terminated in the "convention" of 30th September, 1800, the second article of which declares:

"The Minister Plenipotentiary of the two parties not being able to agree at present respecting the treaty of

French Spoliations—Mr. Phillips.

alliance, 6th February, 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce of same date, and the convention 14th November, 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed, the parties will negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient time."

When the convention was presented to the Senate of the United States, this second article was, by them, stricken out, and a provision added that "The present convention shall be in force for the term of eight years from the time of the exchange of ratifications." Upon the return of this "convention" to France, the French consul agreed to the retrenchment of the second article, and the modification as to its duration, but with a proviso to which I would ask the special attention of the House:

"Provided, That by this retrenchment THE TWO STATES

RENOUNCE THE RESPECTIVE PRETENSIONS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE SAID ARTICLE."

This was on the 31st July, 1801, and the final ratifications took place 19th December, same year. Now, it cannot be denied that the claims of our citizens for spoliations were included among those indemnities, the adjustment of which were, by the second article, postponed to a "convenient time," and therefore constituted a part of those "pretensions" which, by the proviso, were renounced.

To break the force of this position, it is contended that the Senate never agreed to the proviso; but, I cannot learn they ever disagreed to it; but, on the contrary, the "convention" with the proviso being again before them, on the 19th December, they resolved, two thirds concurring, that they consider the convention as fully ratified, and they returned it to the President for promulgation, who proclaimed it in the usual form.

The gentleman has appealed to Mr. Madison's declaration, and in the very extract he read, it is stated by Mr. M. that he did not attach much importance to the proviso, for the legal inference of the treaty, as ratified without the proviso, was as the proviso declared it. That is, when the Senate struck out the second article, which provided for an adjustment, it was equivalent to an abandonment of all mutual liabilities. We might stand, therefore, upon the legal inference as stated by Mr. Madison, the witness summoned by the gentleman.

Mr. ORR. Legitimate inference.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Well, sir, legitimate inference. What is that but legal inference, the very origin of the word, lex legis, shows it to be such an inference as the law would make. And is it upon such an argument as this the plain and emphatic terms of this proviso are to be annulled, and the Government now be permitted to set up that they never renounced the claims of our citizens?

My friend laid some stress upon the expression in the second article, that the parties were "to negotiate further on these subjects, at a convenient time." But I would ask, in the name of humanity, in the name of justice, when will it be a "couvenient time," if not now, after the lapse of more than half a century? When will it be ་་ a convenient time," if not now, in the midst of peace, an abundant prosperity, and an overflowing Treasury!

But, sir, let us pass on. We have demonstrated that our citizens had just claims or pretensions against the French Government; that those claims or pretensions were of such a character as to have been made the foundation of an act abrogating our treaties with that Government; that they formed the instructions to our Minister in 1799, which went so far as to direct "that the recognition of these claims should be enforced, as an indispensable condition of the treaty;" that the second article of the treaty of 1800 did provide that these questions should be adjusted at a "convenient time;" that this second article of the treaty was stricken out by the Senate of the United States, on its ratification, and a proviso added that the convention should exist but for eight years; that these amendments were concurred in by the French Government, with the express stipulation, that this retrenchment of the second article was to be considered as a mutual abandonment by the two Governments of their mutual claims. After all this, can it be still insisted that our Government is at liberty to maintain that our citizens had no claims against the French Government, and that therefore the treaty forfeited none?

Ho. OF REPS.

The question now remains, were these claims or pretensions valuable? In answering, I will refer to no authorities of a secondary or subordinate character, nor shall I rely upon any but documentary evidence, derived from the highest official sources-from men who lived at the date of these transactions, fully acquainted with their history, and having authority to speak.

Timothy Pickering (Secretary of State in 1800)

says:

"If the relinquishment (of these claims) had not been made, the present French Government (1824) would be responsible; consequently the relinquishment by our own Government having been made, in consideration that the French Government relinquished its demand for a renewal of the old treaties, then it seems clear that, as our Government applied the merchants' property to buy off those old treaties, the sums so applied should be reimbursed.”—Letter, 19th November, 1824."

Robert R. Livingston, Minister to France, April 27, 1803, says:

"The payment for illegal captures, with damages and indemnities, was demanded on one side, and the renewal of the treaty of 1788 on the other; they were considered as of equal value, and they only formed the subject of the second article."-Doc. 102, p. 717.

John Marshall (one of the Ministers) says:

"I would positively oppose any admission of the claims of any French citizen, if not accompanied with the admission of the claims of American citizens, for property captured and condemned for want of a role d'equipage. My reason for conceiving that this ought to be stipulated expressly, was a conviction that, if it was referred to commissioners, it would be committing absolutely to chance as complete a right as any individual ever possessed.”—

Journal, p. 471, No. 316.

Now, sir, as the gentleman from South Carolina has referred to Mr. Madison in support of his opposition, let us see how far such a reference is justifiable:

"James Madison, (then Secretary of State,) February 6, 1804, says: The claims from which France was released were admitted by France, and the release was for a valuable consideration in a correspondent release of the United States from certain claims on them.'" (Doc. 102, p. 793.)

The opposition is welcome to all the aid and comfort it can derive from Mr. Madison. We have thus presented the clear avowals of two of our Secretaries of State, and of two of our Commissioners, made at a time when the circumstances of the treaty were fresh in the minds of all, and who were parties concerned in its formation and ratification.

Nor was the value of these claims or pretensions alone admitted by our Government, they were also so regarded by France, as is seen in the celebrated proviso to which we have already referred, and by other evidence to which I will presently advert.

My friend from South Carolina, in his very earnest speech, stated that members should beware of the statements used in the presentation of this subject by parties interested, as in many cases they were unreliable and deceptive; and in proof of this, he referred to the report made by Mr. Giles, which he described as not favoring these claims, as it had been generally represented. I differ with the gentleman as to his construction of that report. It is true that it submits the question whether the Government was "bound to indemnify the memorialists," but the facts stated in the report, the order in which they are arranged, and the means by which they are connected, all speak out the favorable conclusion at which the committee had arrived, as clearly and inevitably as though express terms of approbation had been used.

Mr. ORR. Read what Mr. Giles says.

Mr. PHILLIPS. My limited time will not permit me to read extensively from the report, but I will read a short extract from it. Now, sir, the great question between us is, whether our Government used these claims for spoliation in its treaty, and did, by the terms of that treaty, release the rights of our citizens?

Mr. ORR. I will reply to the gentleman's question if he will permit me.

Mr. PHILLIPS. As my time has so nearly run out I must really adopt the excellent rule laid down by my friend on the opening of his speech, that he would consent to no interruption.

[Cries of "That's right]!"

Mr. ORR. Only a moment. The question laid down by the gentleman is not the point in controversy. The point is, did the Government of the United States surrender these claims for a